Re: The Right Moment For Reform, editorial, July 28.In the 1860s, Britain was understandably leery of purely democratic institutions, given the excesses of American populist democracy and the chaos after the “democratic” revolution in France. Hence, it patterned the Canadian Senate on the British House of Lords to provide a brake to populist excesses and to enable regional representation.

The peripheral provinces were scarcely populated, their legislatures were poor and weak, and methods of communication were rudimentary. The Canadian Senate was anything but democratic.

The regional provinces are now much stronger, while their premiers are vocal and articulate, and meet frequently for inter-provincial conferences. Systems of communication are excellent. The opposition parties, the media, the premiers and the Supreme Court can oppose and/or reject unpopular or unjust legislation. In the final instance (as it should be), voters can reject an unpopular government.

Canadians are already over-governed. To make the Senate relevant only courts legislative gridlock. Should any provincial premier object to abolition of the Senate on the grounds of its necessity, let that premier reintroduce an upper house in his or her jurisdiction.D.C. McCaffrey, Ottawa.

Democracy should be a clear and direct method of electing governments to create the laws of our country. It is senseless to have another layer of bureaucracy with power over our democratic choice. To claim this organization is somehow a “sober oversight” is an insult to all Canadians and disrespect for the freedom and responsibility to make our own choices.Iain G. Foulds, Spruce Grove, Alta.

The Greek option

Re: Chow Eyes Return To Ottawa, July 29.Although Olivia Chow may be a nice woman, she and Adam Vaughan are dyed in the wool socialists. Their beliefs and policies mirror those of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and our current provincial government — they are all tax and spend advocates.

Chow believes people who work hard and make high salaries should be taxed to the limit and the cash redistributed to those who don’t — or won’t work. This will produce what we already have in Ontario: an ever-shrinking manufacturing industry, a loss of jobs and the departure of upper-middle-class and overtaxed families, leaving behind a deprived population like those in Detroit or Greece.

If you vote for either of these two candidates who, regardless of political party, are cut from the same cloth, all you are doing is helping socialism to bankrupt Canada. Unfortunately, we don’t have a European Union to bail us out.Ron Fawcett, Toronto.

Grown-ups bully, too

Re: Bullying An Inherited Trait: Study, July 28.The idea people bully others in an effort to gain higher status is by no means unique. The stereotypical portrayal of a bully is the good-looking jock with the cheerleader girlfriend picking on his smaller and more timid classmates.

While the academic understanding may currently focus on bullies being “maladaptive,” anyone who has experienced bullying knows it’s usually done by someone near the top of the social ladder or someone who wants to be there. This can be seen out of high school — the success of people like Rob Ford and Donald Trump seems to suggest bullying’s power is growing, rather than diminishing. The reality is, bullying will continue as long as it works. If it leads to high self-esteem, high social status and more sex, why would anyone stop?
Julian Granka Ferguson, Toronto.

Lessons for Trudeau

Re: Montreal-Area Riding Awaits Battle For Trudeau Aide, July 28.The next election is starting to look like a two-way race between the New Democrats and the Conservatives. If the Liberals want to avoid this fate, they must act quickly. Leader Justin Trudeau may want to look at the Liberal Party of Quebec in his home province to find out how.

Philippe Couillard has taken the austerity track and essentially forced the right-wing Coalition Avenir Québec out of its spot as the fiscally conservative alternative. The election of Pierre-Karl Péladeau as head of the Parti Québécois will eventually lead to the defection of the party’s left-leaning base to the more progressive Québec Solidaire. The provincial Liberals may be in power for the next 10 years.

Trudeau should effectively go to the right in financial matters (and push the Tories farther right) and be progressive on social matters (forcing the NDP to look way too progressive for the average Canadian). Only by doing this, can he return the Liberal Party of Canada to the “natural governing party of Canada” status it maintained throughout the 20th century.Jean Marier, Pointe Claire, Que.

Churchill’s remorse

Re: Churchill Clear-Eyed Over Stalin, letter to the editor, July 28.Former British prime minister Winston Churchill was a great allied leader in the Second World War and we should thank him for his contribution to the defeat of Nazism. His relationship with Stalin has been intensively debated and opinions vary widely. It is important to consider their relationship at different periods, especially during and after the war.

During the war and especially at the peace conferences in 1945, it at times verged on the chummy. It was only after the end of the war, after he and Roosevelt had ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, Churchill realized what a huge mistake he had made — but by then it was too late. He had helped to defeat Nazism, only to see it replaced by communism.Reiner Jaakson, Oakville, Ont.

Sounds like protectionism

Re: The Cartel’s Propaganda, Stephen Gordon, July 28.I read with interest the milk producers’ oligopoly propaganda. How convenient of them to trot out the patriotism argument when it comes to protecting their corporate welfare. What else can you call a government-regulated supply management system that guarantees them over-market prices? Are they telling consumers they are incapable of producing high-quality milk in a competitive environment and the only way they can exist is by over-charging the public and without what amounts to a public subsidy they will go out of business?

Government-mandated quality standards are a useful tool to ensure consumers get quality products, but allowing milk producers to avoid competition and the need for innovation doesn’t breed good cows, it breeds laziness.Murray Robinson, Vancouver.

Avoiding the Big O

Re: On The Olympics, Tread With Caution, editorial, July 29.Will Mayor John Tory and other boosters for a Toronto Olympic bid also insist local taxpayers will not be left holding the cost-overrun bag like the citizens of Montreal who were on the hook for their 1976 Olympics for 30 years?Eli Honig, Toronto.

Re-educate the military

Re: Ombudsman Urges Redress For Victims, July 29.If it takes 41 years for the military to resolve outstanding issues resulting from a grenade explosion that killed six cadets and injured many others, it’s no wonder it can’t handle procurement fiascos or sexual harassment challenges. Officers need to be trained to do more than kill the enemy. They must also learn how to manage a complex organization, rather than creating more snafus — as seems all too common.Raymond Foote, Ottawa.

Senseless killing

Re: Unaware Of Big Cat’s Status, U.S. Hunter Says, July 29.Let me see if I’ve got this straight: I pay $50,000 to fly to Africa, get on a truck with some guides, shoot and wound a protected animal (or even “unprotected” — does it really make a difference?), try to find the wounded animal for two days, then shoot it again with a rifle to finally kill it, cut off its head for my trophy and leave the remains to rot.

This doesn’t sound like hunting. Rather, it’s the senseless killing of an animal that was living its natural life in the outdoors, only to be killed so an insecure individual who paid an enormous amount of money can feel like a “big man.”Robert Barkin, Toronto.

Canadian senators put on suits and show up to work. They hold question periods. They vote, give speeches, argue and deliver lengthy commemorations to dead colleagues.

But while they certainly look busy for their $142,400 annual salary, it’s safe to say that lately, the Upper Chamber hasn’t really been doing anything of consequence.

“The Senate hasn’t really been playing much of a role as a watchdog,” said David Mitchell, president of the Ottawa-based Public Policy Forum.

Shrouded by scandal and reviled by virtually the entire House of Commons, the Conservative-dominated Senate has lately had almost no effect on new legislation — aside from delays.

It’s not clear that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s informal siege against the Upper Chamber — he announced Friday he would be making no new appointments to it — will have any immediate deleterious effects.

There are few aspects of modern Canadian law that bear the fingerprint of the Red Chamber (even though Canadian legislation can theoretically be introduced in either chamber of Parliament).

A notable exception, however, would be the lack of any Criminal Code legislation related to abortion, which the Senate blocked in 1989.

According to Mitchell, however, there was a time when the Canadian Senate could be said to have been a body shaping the “direction of public policy and public opinion.”

Senators — free from the ungentlemanly partisanship of the House of Commons — dutifully checked legislation for errors and oversights. Senate committees released thoughtful reports that were received with the same gravity that modern Ottawa now gives to an Auditor Generals’ report.

“The Senate banking committee did some great work that had an extraordinary impact on Bay Street and public policy in Canada; we haven’t seen too much like that lately,” said Mitchell.

Gordon Barnhart, a former Saskatchewan lieutenant-governor, served as Senate clerk from 1989 to 1994. According to Barnhart, Canada’s estrangement from its Senate started during the GST debate.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian PressThere was a time when the Canadian Senate could be said to have been a body shaping the “direction of public policy and public opinion,” but not so much anymore, an expert says.

In 1990, a Liberal majority in the Senate threatened to block Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s attempt to pass GST legislation. In response, Mulroney invoked a rare clause to stack the chamber with eight extra senators — and gain an instant Progressive Conservative majority.

“I think it changed the Senate for the worse, and I think it changed the relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons,” he said.

Now, virtually every party has begun to see the Senate as an annoying speed bump to royal assent. Although individual MPs occasionally canvass the Red Chamber to block a piece of unpopular legislation, such actions are usually decried as undemocratic.

The most dramatic recent exercise of senatorial power came in 2013, when a revolt by Conservative senators gutted a union transparency bill.

The effort — which senators boasted at the time was a prime example of “sober second thought” — only delayed the bill two years. The unamended law passed last month.

Outside the times when the Senate is sitting, meanwhile, little is known of what the members are doing. Unlike MPs, most senators do not publish details of their public appearances or constituency work.

In 2013, CTV canvassed the then-99 members of the Red Chamber to ask them their senatorial duties when not in Ottawa. More than half — 59 in all — either ignored the request or refused to provide information.

“I am not in the habit of releasing my plans in advance and don’t plan to start,” Sen. Mike Duffy, a former CTV employee, told the network at the time.

Ned Franks, a constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at Queen’s University, says there is no lack of talent in the Senate and “could be used much better.”

Similar to Britain’s House of Lords, he suggests that senators be selected by an independent committee, thus preventing the chamber from being stacked with patronage appointments. This is also the view of National Post founder Conrad Black, also a Canadian-born member of the House of Lords.

In public writings, Black has said that if Canada simply put better senators in its Upper Chamber, we could reap the benefits of an institution free from the “barnyard noises and other forms of infantilism of most elected chambers.”

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadian-senates-slide-into-irrelevance-watchdog-role-has-gradually-eroded-expert-says/feed1stdsenators-1Adrian Wyld/The Canadian PressCanada’s Senate: What Stephen Harper has said, and where the provinces stand on it nowhttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-senate-what-stephen-harper-has-said-and-where-the-provinces-stand-now
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-senate-what-stephen-harper-has-said-and-where-the-provinces-stand-now#commentsSat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:27 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=837889

Here’s where each province stands on Senate reform/abolition:

B.C.

“Our position is that the Senate should be fixed, or it should be folded. We believe that options for the Senate should be examined, with everything from changes to abolishment discussed. In British Columbia, we’re focused on economic growth to create jobs. Our goal is to provide the best services to British Columbians and we cannot let the debate about the Senate take us away from this important work.” (Statement from the Attorney General/Justice Minister Suzanne Anton.)

Alberta

“The issue of the Senate is one that will be debated in the next federal election. The position of the next federal government on the Senate will help determine whether this issue is a priority for us or not.” (Statement from Office of Premier Rachel Notley to Maclean’s in June. Office had nothing to add Friday.)

Saskatchewan

“The position of the government of Saskatchewan is similar (to the Prime Minister’s) in terms of preferring meaningful reform, what’s called Triple-E reform: a Senate that would be elected, effective and equal. … We’ve just simply come to the view, given what I’ve seen around the provincial table, there is no chance … for us to achieve a Triple-E Senate … the Prime Minister has just said is it’s up to the provinces and I hope provinces and territories would respond. ” (Premier Brad Wall at a joint news conference with Harper Friday.)

Manitoba

“It is the long-standing position of the NDP that the Senate should be abolished, just as Manitoba abolished its upper house in 1876. All too often, it serves partisan interests rather than the public interest. In 2013 the Manitoba Legislature passed a motion urging the federal government to engage the provinces in consultation towards the ultimate goal of finding consensus to abolish the Senate.” (Statement from the Office of Premier Greg Selinger to Maclean’s in June. Office had nothing to add Friday.)

Ontario

“Today’s announcement distracts from the urgent priorities facing Canadians, like infrastructure investments and retirement security. The Premiers met last week and unanimously called on the federal government to address urgent issues like jobs and the economy, health care, Aboriginal issues, and climate change. Unfortunately the Prime Minister declined to participate. We continue to urge the Stephen Harper to focus on these urgent priorities.” (Statement from Office of Premier Kathleen Wynne.)

Quebec

“Our position hasn’t changed, we want to reform this institution, so that the Senate can effectively play a real role for regional representation across Canada.” (Statement from Felix Rheaume, spokesman for intergovernmental affairs minister.)

New Brunswick

“Look, do we think there should be reform? Of course … However, there is always a role for the Senate to play as well … If changes need to happen, as we’ve said many times, the Supreme Court has made very clear to Prime Minister Harper that you can’t do that without consulting with the provinces … So he knows those rules. It’s unfortunate we’re just prior to … an election and all of a sudden he brings this issue again.” (Donald Arsenault, energy and mines minister, speaking to reporters Friday.)

Nova Scotia

“I’m prepared to have a conversation about change in the Senate, but it must be on the condition that we, as Nova Scotians, continue to have the same voice we have now in the upper chamber. We need to remember what the intent was when the Senate was created as an institution, to ensure equal representation for smaller provinces, along with being a chamber for sober second thought.” (Statement from the Office of Premier Stephen McNeil to Maclean’s in June. Office had nothing to add Friday.)

P.E.I.

“The Senate contributes regional balance and voice in our national institutions. Prince Edward Island supports these values and does not favour abolishing the Senate.” (Statement from the Office of Premier Wade MacLauchlan to Maclean’s in June. Office had nothing to add Friday.)

Newfoundland

“Clearly reform of the Senate is needed‎, and Premier Davis would support a comprehensive review and discussion on Senate reform.” (Statement from the Office of Premier Paul Davis to Maclean’s magazine in June. Office had nothing to add Friday.)

“Our country was one of the great economic and political successes of the 20th century. But our political system changed many times since Confederation. And many people think that it should better reflect the realities of a new century. For example, in other parts of Canada — the West in particular — there have long been demands for better representation of the regions in federal decision-making. As a result, both of our predecessor parties have favoured an aggressive approach to Senate reform, beginning with the election of future senators.”

“Honourable senators, years of delay on Senate reform must come to an end, and it will. The Senate must change and we intend to make it happen. The government is not looking for another report — it is seeking action that responds to the commitments we made to Canadians during the recent federal election.”

Statement before the House of Commons, Oct 17, 2007

“Let me just say that I remain convinced the country deserves a reformed Senate, and an elected Senate for that matter, but the country needs the Senate to change, and if the Senate cannot be reformed, I think most Canadians will eventually conclude that it should be abolished.”

Speech from the Throne, June 2011

“Reform of the Senate remains a priority for our Government. Our Government will reintroduce legislation to limit term lengths and to encourage provinces and territories to hold elections for Senate nominees.”

Speech to party delegates in Calgary, Nov. 1, 2013

“So, friends, it is time for the Senate to show it can reform itself. The vast majority of Conservative senators want to do this.”

Harper response to Supreme Court of Canada ruling that he can’t make major changes to the upper chamber without provincial approval, April 25, 2014

“We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition, and no desire of anyone to reopen the Constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations … Significant reform and abolition are off the table. I think it’s a decision that I’m disappointed with. But I think it’s a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with. But obviously we will respect that decision.”

Joint news conference with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall on Friday

“All through my political career and over the last several years as Prime Minister, I’ve said repeatedly … that the Senate must be reformed and if it cannot be reformed it should be abolished. The fact of the matter is, as you know, Canadians remain divided over whether they want to reform or abolish the Senate. The Supreme Court ruled … that both reform and abolition would require unanimous approval of the provinces.

“Canadians are not divided on their opposition to the status quo, that is to an unelected, unaccountable senate. The government is not going to take any actions going forward that would do anything to further entrench that unelected, unaccountable Senate. For the past two-and-a-half years, since the Supreme Court decision and prior, I have not made any appointments to the Senate. There are now 22 vacancies in the Senate. And let me be clear. It will be our policy to formalize that. We will have a moratorium on further Senate appointments. This has two advantages: the first and obvious advantage is it saves costs. … But the second advantage of this approach is it will force provinces over time, who as you know have been resistant to any reforms in most cases, to either come up with a plan of comprehensive reform or to conclude that the only way to deal with the status quo is abolition.”

Friday’s rumoured announcement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in company of Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, that the Tories now favour outright abolition of the Senate, raises any number of intriguing political questions. One, in particular, looms large: Do Canadians care more about the Senate than the Conservatives were counting on?

For months, both pundits and off-the-record Tory insiders have been musing that, while the various scandals that have dogged Harper’s Senate appointments may outrage the media and those inside the Ottawa bubble, “real Canadians” don’t care. Average working stiffs out there may roll their eyes or curse under their breath when they hear about some Ottawa-type behaving badly, even living large off the public tab, but they aren’t likely to vote on it. They’re more worried about pocketbook issues, law-and-order, the economy, national security, and other red meat priorities. Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau and now Meredith are embarrassing, sure. But they aren’t fatal.

So argues the conventional wisdom that has prevailed these last few years among the Tories, at any rate.

What if it’s wrong?

I’m not saying it is — I tend to agree with the Tory insider types who privately dismiss the extent of the damage the Senate’s many scandals will inflict on the Tory campaign. But this bolt-from-the-blue rumour that campaigning for Senate abolition may be a central part of the Tory campaign suggests, if nothing else, that they may have changed their mind about the potential danger here. And that’s intriguing.

The NDP and Liberals, of course, have already taken their stands. The NDP promise they’d abolish the Senate, while glossing over all the practical difficulties that would entail. The Liberals, for their part, sort-of-but-not-really excommunicated all their senators and Justin Trudeau has said he’d reform the appointments process going forward. Both plans have merit, both present problems. But they exist. They’re out there. For the Dippers and Grits, that base is covered.

The Tories, however, had been very quiet on this. Ever since their Supreme Court Senate reference went down in flames in 2014 — the Court effectively slammed the door on any easy path to Senate reform, leaving the Constitutional route or nothing — they haven’t had boo to say about it. That made sense for two reasons. First off, as noted above, they didn’t seem particularly concerned. Second, to the limited extent they felt it was a problem, why draw attention to a liability?

Again, that made perfect sense. Indeed, it still makes perfect sense — which is why a big part of me is wondering if all the buzz about the Prime Minister suddenly supporting abolition is a miscommunication or an outright false rumour run amok during the height of the summer news slump.

But if it’s not, and this is a real story — it’s 12:30 p.m. Eastern now, so we’ll know a few hours — you have to wonder what’s changed.

It could be a purely strategic move. After all, the rumours suggest the Prime Minister would couch his proposal in terms of a plan to consult with the provinces about how to move forward. That certainly would buy some time and kick this can down the road until after the election, and give the Tories something to point to during the campaign whenever this came up. A commitment to consult is boring, but it’s something.

The more interesting option, of course, is that the Tories have decided for whatever reason — internal polling, perhaps — that the Senate is a bigger problem than they expected or anticipated. In a tight race, losing a few seats over naughty behaviour in the Upper Chamber could have huge ramifications. This may be a belated attempt to “feel the pain” of the voters in a way that blunts the sharpest criticisms the Tories know is coming.

It’s all speculation, of course. We don’t even know for sure, at time of writing, if anything is going to happen. And yet. The Tories have spent years telling people like me, and acting as if they truly believed, that Senate scandals were embarrassing, annoying, frustrating … but ultimately insignificant. And now we’re suddenly confronted with the prospect that, rather than a trivial irritation, the Senate scandals may be about to become a centrepiece of the Conservative re-election campaign, one that the polls are showing will be tight and hard-fought right across the country.

What to do with the Senate is an important issue. It deserves a proper debate and the attention of all Canadians. It deserves to be taken more seriously than some pre-election irritant to be punted down the road. But if that punting is about to happen, it sure is interesting to wonder why … and what changed.

National Post
mgurney@nationalpost.com
Twitter.com/mattgurney

Matt Gurney is deputy editor of the National Post Comment section and a member of the paper’s editorial board. He hosts National Post Radio every weekday morning from 6 to 9 ET on SiriusXM’s Canada Talks, channel 167.

Stephen Harper unveiled his new policy on the Senate Friday: Death by retirement.

The prime minister said he will formalize his de facto moratorium on Senate appointments, which, if the policy takes, will see Patrick Brazeau as the last man snoozing in 2049 (on condition the suspended senator’s suspension is lifted).

Long before then, the Red Chamber will have ceased to function, if no new appointments are made. There are currently 22 vacancies in the 105-seat upper house. If Harper wins a majority and follows through with his plan, there will be a further 23 empty seats by the time of the next election in 2019.

Harper explained that, besides saving millions of dollars by leaving the chamber half-empty, his policy would force provinces to get serious about plans for reform or abolition.

It will certainly focus the minds in some provincial capitals. Ontario is already down seven senators and would lose another seven by the time of the next election; Quebec has six vacancies and would be short another six by 2019. Nova Scotia is missing two of its 10 senators and would stand to lose a further three; while P.E.I. would see its representation halved.

The new plan is sure to bring Harper into conflict with the Supreme Court, which was explicit in stating that a long-term policy of non-appointments would fundamentally alter Canada’s constitutional architecture. Not for the first time, the prime minister is advocating a policy that he knows is likely to be deemed unconstitutional.

But the prime minister probably considers such legal niceties as problems to be faced somewhere down the road. First he has an election to win and the moratorium at least means he now has a policy that does not position him as a defender of the status quo.

As he said in his remarks in Regina, Canadians are divided over reform versus abolition but they are not divided over opposition to the continuation of an unelected, unaccountable Senate.

He said his government will take no action that further entrenches the current set-up — a policy that offers a clear counterpoint to Justin Trudeau’s idea of improving the Senate by improving the quality of senators.

In truth, Harper’s options were limited. As his former chief of staff, Ian Brodie, wrote last year in an article that suggested the idea of formalizing the moratorium, Harper could “hardly run the risk of appointing another profligate.”

Having failed in his attempts to introduce elections for senators and term limits, Harper’s patience with the upper house is worn thin and his preference for abolition apparent.

But he does not possess a magic wand that could make the Senate disappear. The power to appoint is the only hocus pocus at his disposal.

The constitutional case for the defence is that the number of senators will not be reduced to zero — or at least not in the next four years — and that the institution will still be there, providing a degree of regional representation. It doesn’t sound persuasive, even as I write it.

The odds must be good that, if Harper is re-elected, a challenge will make it to the Supreme Court, which will in turn tell the government they are constitutionally obliged to fill the eventide home at the east end of Centre Block with some new, if not necessarily young, blood.

But the prime minister appears to have concluded that at this stage he doesn’t need an ironclad legal case; he needs a policy on the Senate that can get him through an election campaign. The moratorium gives him that and will provide a fig leaf of cover when the Mike Duffy trial resumes next month.

It’s not great, but it’s an improvement on simply throwing his hands in the air and saying we’re stuck with the Senate the way it is.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are expected to appear together Friday to call for the abolition of the Senate, according to a source familiar with their plans.

Harper is scheduled to hold a press conference at the Saskatchewan Legislative Building in the afternoon, where he will be joined by Wall.

Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the office of the Saskatchewan Premier could be reached Thursday evening to confirm the announcement.

The Senate has been a constant thorn in the side of the Prime Minister, who has gone from railing against its lack of accountability and pushing for reform as a member of the opposition, to being tarnished by its excesses as a series of a scandals consumed Conservative members of the Upper Chamber in recent years.

Suspended Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, who was appointed by Harper, is currently on trial on a total of 31 charges including multiple counts of fraud and breach of trust in relation to his Senate expenses.

Duffy was suspended along with fellow Conservative senators Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin in 2013 after questions about their expenses came to light.

More recently, Conservative Senator Don Meredith was removed from the party caucus after allegations he had an affair with an underage girl.

Calling for outright abolition would mark a policy shift for the Conservatives but one they have hinted at many times over the years.

During a 2007 speech to the Australian parliament Harper said that if the Upper Chamber could not be reformed, there would be only one solution.

“Canadians understand that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change or — like the old upper houses of our provinces — vanish,” he said.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that Ottawa could not act alone to kill the Senate — such a move would require the unanimous consent of all provinces.

One possible method would be via a plebiscite, an avenue former Senator Hugh Segal twice proposed while serving in the Senate in 2005-14.

“The question should be put honourably to Canadians — we should afford them the chance to have their say. Otherwise, the system rolls on and the general cynicism will spread to other things, which is not a good thing for our democracy,” he said.

An Angus Reid Institute poll conducted in April found that about 41% of Canadians would support abolishing the Red Chamber, while another 45% want it reformed. Only 14% thought it should be left as it is.

At the time, only 16% of poll respondents said their views of the Senate would inform their vote in the coming election.

Wall, meanwhile, has been a long supporter of Senate abolition. He told CBC radio in June that it would be easier to just get rid of Senate than to reform it.

In November 2013, Wall introduced a government motion calling for the Senate to be abolished, where he said he believes most people in his province think the Senate no longer serves any useful purpose.

National Post with files from Postmedia News

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldThe Senate chamber on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

OTTAWA — A former Conservative senator faces a second ethics probe after an investigation into his office unearthed allegations of harassment and bullying, The Canadian Press has learned.

The allegations in the investigation report remain unproven and none of the staffers who took part, nor any whose stories are included in the report, wanted to file a formal complaint against Sen. Don Meredith.

A Senate source with knowledge of the report, speaking on condition of anonymity because no public statements had been authorized, said the majority of the allegations against Meredith describe him as being a bully, rude and unprofessional towards his staff.

There are also allegations of psychological harassment and sometimes making irrational demands of his staff, the source said.

The executive members of the Senate’s internal economy committee decided to refer the report to the Senate ethics officer, who is already conducting a preliminary investigation into Meredith on an unrelated matter.

More details of the report are expected to be made public on Thursday.

Depending on the outcome of the latest ethics review, Meredith could face penalties ranging from a forced public apology on the floor of the Senate — which is the punishment for former Conservative Pierre Hugues Boisvenu when he was found last year to have violated the Senate’s ethics code — to suspension without pay.

Meredith did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Canadian Press on Wednesday night.

The Senate first ordered the investigation into Meredith’s office in February after top senators, including former Speaker Pierre Claude Nolin, witnessed what they felt was a troubling turnover of staff in Meredith’s office.

Brett Gundlock/National PostSenator Don Meredith.

The six staffers who left Meredith’s office in the last four years and spoke with investigators are not identified in the report and only took part on the condition that their names be protected.

Two more staffers who left Meredith’s office in the last four years declined to take part, but had their stories told second-hand to investigators from the six staffers who did speak, the source said.

Meredith is already under investigation by the Senate’s ethics officer after published allegations last month that he had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl.

The Toronto-area senator appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper left the Conservative caucus after the allegations were made in a Toronto Star story.

He has since faced calls for his resignation from senators of both stripes. Through a lawyer retained after the Star story was published, Meredith stated he fully intends to respect the internal procedures of the Senate.

Two years prior to being named to the Senate, Meredith ran unsuccessfully for the Conservatives in a 2008 byelection in the riding of Toronto Centre.

Related

In 2012, Meredith landed in trouble with members of his own caucus for appearing at a Persian cultural event at Ottawa City Hall co-organized by the Iranian embassy. The Prime Minister’s Office distanced itself from Meredith after the event, saying Meredith wasn’t there representing the government, which has taken a hard line against Iran.

Last year, Meredith repaid the Senate for a trip he and his wife took to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. The annual event draws some 3,000 politicians and diplomats, including the U.S. president.

Meredith, however, didn’t have any spending problems reported in the auditor general’s June report into Senate spending.

Meredith also landed in hot water for referring to himself as “Dr. Don Meredith” in press releases, despite the fact his doctorate came from a institution that didn’t have degree-granting powers.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/senator-don-meredith-facing-ethics-probe-over-allegations-that-he-harrassed-and-bullied-staff-source-says/feed0stdDon-MeredithBrett Gundlock/National PostDaniel Lang: The Senate did not call for imams to be ‘licensed.’ Nor were we fretting about nothinghttp://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/daniel-lang-the-senate-did-not-call-for-imams-to-be-licensed-nor-were-we-fretting-about-nothing-the-threat-is-real
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/daniel-lang-the-senate-did-not-call-for-imams-to-be-licensed-nor-were-we-fretting-about-nothing-the-threat-is-real#commentsTue, 14 Jul 2015 12:45:21 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=824210

Contrary to the suggestion made in a recent National Post editorial, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence did not propose that government intervene to certify or establish a registry of Islamic or other clerics.

The carefully crafted recommendation asks that “the federal government work with the provinces and the Muslim communities to investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of imams in Canada.”

This is a very important distinction because the recommendation is made in response to testimony from members of the Muslim community as well as experts who confirmed that radicalization begins with person-to-person or person to group contact.

The witnesses who appeared before the committee over the past nine months continuously brought up the fact that radicalizing messages mixed with religious ideology was being advocated by some foreign-trained imams in Canada.

Professor Salim Mansur told the Committee “radicalization occurs among Muslim youth when identity politics facilitates their indoctrination into jihadi politics by Islamist preachers and activists in the community” and stated clearly that “if you are not prepared to tackle radicalization and those who radicalize our youth, we will always be playing catch-up.”

Homa Arjomand, a former Iranian refugee who led the international campaign against Shariah law in Ontario, testified that “under the notion of freedom of religion, the state has legally funded religious schools and centres and placed the children under religious dogma and tradition. With money pouring from Saudi Arabia, Iran and other states, and with [mullahs] and imams being imported to Canada, the result is very obvious. The state has paved the path for more segregation, isolation and discrimination.”

We are confident that this recommendation to encourage the Muslim communities to train their religious leaders in Canada, along with the other 24 recommendations contained in our report, are timely, prudent and necessary responses to the security reality facing all Canadians

Imam Syed Soharwardy, who leads 13 mosques in Canada, warned that “there are people preaching open intolerance in this country.” He went on to state that it is this “intolerance ideology that makes a person become a potential recruit for the terrorist organization? This ideology opens the door for recruitment.”

Another member of the Muslim community, Michelle Waldron, whose family has been directly affected by radicalization, warned Canadians that foreign-trained imams are “blurring the line between traditional Islam and their politically motivated ideology, which opens the door to violence and strife.” She told the Committee that her son Luqman Abdunnur, who was reportedly under national security investigation, was radicalized at a mosque in Ottawa, and arrested three days after the October 2014 Parliament Hill attack. Waldron called on the Committee to “create a certification or licensing standard for clergy and religious leaders in Canada.”

While the Committee did not go this far, it felt the suggestion was worthy of further, open exploration, discussion, and debate.

During the course of our hearings, former Liberal cabinet minister and ex-British Columbia premier Ujjal Dosanjh, himself a victim of terrorism, also urged the Committee to consider greater scrutiny of religious institutions.

Related

Muslim witnesses were among those warning about the hazards posed by religious/political interpretations of jihad. Several witnesses pointed out that this doctrine has served as the impetus and justification for today’s Islamist terrorism. There is reason to believe that perpetrators were persuaded that such thinking about “jihad” justified the killing of a uniformed Canadian Armed Forces’ warrant officer in Quebec, the murder of a National War Memorial sentry in Ottawa, as well as assorted Islamist fundamentalist plots and hostilities in Canada and around the world.

Canada is not alone is discussing the options to prevent Islamist radicalization. Some European countries have gone further than what our Senate Committee contemplated.

Since 2004 the Netherlands passed laws prohibiting foreign imams from practicing there, and today, Belgium, France, Austria and Germany are requiring that imams be trained and certified within their country. Confirming our concerns, just last week, France announced it had deported 40 foreign-trained imams since 2012, and in Tunisia, where 38 tourists were recently murdered, the government announced that it will close 80 Salafist/Wahabbi mosques. Algeria, which has experienced years of civil war, now has restrictions relating to foreign-trained imams.

We are confident that this recommendation to encourage the Muslim communities to train their religious leaders in Canada, along with the other 24 recommendations contained in our report, are timely, prudent and necessary responses to the security reality facing all Canadians.

National Post

Daniel Lang is senator for Yukon and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

The Senate committee on national security and defence’s new report, “Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada,” makes 25 recommendations, many of which are agreeable, necessary, and overdue. In particular, its calls for the government to bar foreign sources of funding for radical groups in Canada, to investigate the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations as potential terrorist entities and to publish a “Wanted Terrorist List” of Canadians with terrorism-related warrants, are welcome.

Of special note is the 22nd recommendation, “legislation to protect Canadians who are participating in the public discourse from vexatious litigation.” As the report explains, the threat of libel suits has too often stifled legitimate debate in this country on issues related to terrorism. It would be a democratic and liberal improvement if the various sides in these arguments were obliged to address each other in the court of public opinion, rather than courts of law — still less the notoriously ill-named human rights tribunals.

One recommendation contained in the report is something we cannot support, however. It calls for investigating options “for the training and certification of imams in Canada.” In their explanation, the senators explain that some “foreign-trained imams have been spreading extremist religious ideology and messages that are not in keeping with Canadian values.” Doubtless this is true, but the conclusion that the state should thereby take it upon itself to certify imams is a red line which should not be crossed.

Surely readers of other faiths would not appreciate a government claiming the authority to decide which of their own religious officials would be allowed to serve their community.

Many commentators, including Canadian Muslims, have denounced this recommendation as discriminatory. They’re right. Surely readers of other faiths would not appreciate a government claiming the authority to decide which of their own religious officials would be allowed to serve their community. Indeed, the idea of a state-approved priest, rabbi, or minister would be unthinkable. To single out Muslims for such treatment, therefore, would be grossly unfair.

It is, second, an assault on religious freedom, one of the core principles of Canadian society, enshrined in the Charter of Rights. The state may not dictate what religion we practice, or how, or in what terms. Neither can it decree who may or may not conduct religious services or represent the faith.

Third, the proposal is too broad. It would cast all foreign-born or trained imams under suspicion. Islam is a global religion. Surely the senators did not mean to suggest that being an observant Muslim from another country is itself cause for alarm?

Related

Fourth, such a regime of government oversight would be simply unworkable. Apart from engendering further suspicion among Canadian Muslims that the government has something against them, it would involve federal officials in the thorny business of evaluating whether a given imam’s teachings represented the “true” faith, an issue which has proved difficult enough for full-time Islamic scholars, let alone bureaucratic trainees.

Even if it were to disapprove of a particular imam, the government would scarcely be able to prevent him from preaching, or to insist that he use the government-approved interpretation of Islamic theology in place of his own. And even if somehow it accomplished that, it would do nothing to address the security agencies’ concerns that Canadians are self-radicalizing using materials produced by jihadists all over the world.

There is much in this preliminary report that we like. We look forward to the final version, to come by year’s end. But state certification of Islamic religious officials is a step too far, and we are glad to see the Conservative government has rejected it out of hand.

OTTAWA — Three bills passed by the House of Commons had their fates decided by the Senate on the eve of Canada Day — one was pushed through by the Conservative majority, while the other two languished without a word being spoken.

Justin Tang for National PostIn a lengthy speech Monday, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan said “a number” of Conservative senators were “uncomfortable” with parts of the bill.

A third didn’t even get a mention, failing to come as far in the legislative process as it did two years ago.

Combined, they were the last acts of the Senate as it trudged into the summer after two years of scandal or questionable spending by 34 senators, and ethical questions surrounding one additional member of the upper chamber.

The Senate’s final vote before its summer break was a 35-22 result that passed Bill C-377 two years after senators originally gutted the legislation — an act of defiance by 16 Conservatives against their own government.

On Tuesday, only three Conservative senators voted against the legislation — John Wallace, Nancy Ruth and Diane Bellemare — while a fourth, Doug Black, abstained.

The bill requires unions to publicly disclose all transactions over $5,000, reveal the details of officers or executives who make over $100,000, and provide that information to the Canada Revenue Agency, which would publicly post the information to its website.

Conservatives argued the bill will shed light on union finances. A group that lobbied for the Senate to pass the bill applauded the final vote.

“Transparency and accountability are fundamental to democracy,” Terrance Oakey, president of Merit Canada, said in a statement.

“If labour organizations want to enjoy the dual benefits of mandatory dues collection and beneficial tax treatment, they must earn it by operating in a transparent manner.”

Brent Lewin for National PostBill C-377 requires unions to disclose all expenses over $5,000 and salaries over $100,000 so members can see how their money is being spent.

The federal privacy commissioner raised concerns about the scope of the bill, seven provinces denounced it as unconstitutional and numerous other labour associations have called for its defeat.

That led Senate Liberals to argue the bill’s passage would trigger a court challenge that the government would likely lose.

Opposition leader James Cowan told the chamber during the last few hours of debate on the bill that its passage “provide ammunition to those who argue for (the Senate’s) abolition.”

Former Conservative senator Hugh Segal, who led the uprising against the bill two years ago, had previously told The Canadian Press that the passage of C-377 could hurt the Conservatives in dozens of ridings where labour unions could influence the outcome of the fall vote.

Why somebody would decide that kind of suicidal, ideologically narrow excess is in the national or the party’s interests or the prime minister’s interests is completely beyond me

“Why somebody would decide that kind of suicidal, ideologically narrow excess is in the national or the party’s interests or the prime minister’s interests is completely beyond me,” Segal said in an interview last week.

In a statement Tuesday, minutes after the final vote on C-377, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed to repeal the law should his party form the next government.

Before the C-377 vote, the Senate allowed three other high-profile private member’s bills to essentially perish Tuesday without giving two a word of debate and letting a third become buried at committee.

Government Senate leader Claude Carignan delayed debate in his name on a transgender rights bill introduced by NDP MP Randall Garrison that was passed with bipartisan support in the House of Commons, effectively killing the legislation.

Related

That move spared senators from having to vote on a bill that supporters said had been effectively gutted and stripped of any power during Senate committee hearings.

Senators were also denied the chance to debate committee amendments to a bill aimed at stripping convicted parliamentarians of their pensions, which is also poised to die an unceremonious death.

A third bill passed by the House of Commons with bipartisan support — one that would allow single-game sports betting — was left to wallow in a Senate committee and was never referred back to the Senate for further debate.

All other bills the Senate didn’t pass Tuesday will die on the order paper should Parliament dissolve for the expected fall election before the Red Chamber next sits.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/senate-passes-controversial-union-financing-bill-before-rising-for-the-summer/feed1stdsenate1Justin Tang for National PostBrent Lewin for National PostSenate’s last job before summer: Pass or kill a contentious bill that would force unions to disclose expenseshttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/senates-last-job-before-summer-pass-or-kill-a-contentious-bill-that-would-force-unions-to-disclose-expenses
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/senates-last-job-before-summer-pass-or-kill-a-contentious-bill-that-would-force-unions-to-disclose-expenses#commentsTue, 30 Jun 2015 13:48:52 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=813609

OTTAWA — A final vote on a contentious union finance disclosure bill will likely be the last act of senators before they leave for their summer break.

The government used its majority in the Senate to shut off debate and force a final vote on Bill C-377 that’s set for later today.

That followed hours of acrimonious debate in the Senate where, at one point, the chamber’s deputy speaker had to calm hecklers after a Liberal senator referenced her father’s service in the Second World War as she made arguments against the union bill.

The bill would require unions to publicly disclose all transactions over $5,000, reveal the details of officers or executives who make over $100,000, and provide that information to the Canada Revenue Agency, which would publicly post the information to its website.

The Conservatives argue the bill will shed light on union finances.

Related

The federal privacy commissioner has raised concerns about the scope of the bill, seven provinces have said the bill is unconstitutional, and numerous other labour associations have called for the bill’s defeat.

That’s unlikely to happen, given the Conservative majority in the Senate, unless enough Tories buck the party line and vote against C-377 as they did two years ago.

In a lengthy speech Monday, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan said “a number” of Conservative senators were “uncomfortable” with parts of the bill.

“Indeed, we heard that members of the government — cabinet ministers — were themselves uncomfortable with this bill, and quietly hoped it would die,” Cowan said.

“Amending or allowing this bill to die on the order paper would be the right thing to do.”

Today’s vote will be the culmination of four years of debate on C-377, but it is not the only private member’s bill whose fate will be decided on the eve of Canada Day.

Indeed, we heard that members of the government — cabinet ministers — were themselves uncomfortable with this bill, and quietly hoped it would die

One is a transgender rights bill introduced by NDP MP Randall Garrison that was passed with bipartisan support in the House of Commons.

The other one, a bill aimed at stripping convicted parliamentarians of their pensions, comes with particular relevance for the upper chamber, with some 34 senators in varying degrees of hot water over their expense accounts.

Both bills were amended by senators when they were reviewed at committee, which means if they are approved, they are doomed: they would have to go back to the House of Commons, which won’t reconvene before the fall election.

A third bill passed by the House of Commons with bipartisan support — one that would allow single-game sports betting — isn’t expected to have a third reading vote Tuesday.

Any bills the Senate doesn’t pass before it rises will die on the order paper.

By finally passing the Reform Act — a private member’s bill intended to make the House of Commons more democratic — the Senate has averted a full-blown constitutional crisis. But the Reform Act was just one of several pieces of legislation still threatened by the Senate’s stalling act.

There is, for example, Bill C-377, Conservative MP Russ Hiebert’s private member’s bill, which would require unions to make their finances more transparent. It has been stuck on the Senate order paper since December 2012. There is Bill C-290, which would legalize single-event sports betting, still in Senate limbo more than 1,200 days after it passed unanimously in the House.

And then there is Bill C-518, the Protecting Taxpayers from Convicted Politicians Act, which would disqualify MPs and senators convicted of particular crimes — for example, fiddling their expenses — from their parliamentary pensions. The Commons passed this bill in February, by a vote of 258-13. We can’t imagine why senators would not be similarly enthused.

The fate of these bills is instructive, for any who imagine that the upper house feels somehow constrained by its unelected status from obstructing legislation passed by the Commons. To be sure, it does not often defeat such bills outright, though the occasions on which it has are hardly insignificant, from abortion to the Kyoto climate change treaty.

But the number of bills that have died by the Senate’s pocket veto — killed, that is, not by any overt act of the Senate but by a Parliamentary session having expired without a vote having taken place — must be in the hundreds. It would be a useful research exercise to go through how many of these were deliberately delayed in the upper house for such purpose, and what their subject matter was.

Related

So the issue is still with us, and must be resolved. It cannot be tolerated, in a democracy, that a chamber without a democratic mandate should have the power to amend or defeat legislation passed by the people’s elected representatives. It has been more than 100 years since the Parliament Act was passed in the United Kingdom, restricting the House of Lords to a suspensive veto only, as is now the case for the Senate with regard to constitutional amendments. While similar legislation here would require a constitutional amendment, it is within the Senate’s power to reform itself in this regard.

As the political scientist Andrew Heard has argued in these pages, the Senate could amend its own rules to similar effect, for example to provide that a bill shall be deemed to have passed if the Senate does not pass it within six months, or 30 days for a money bill. It would be a nervy Senate that refused to make such amendments, if so instructed by the Commons.

The coming election campaign would be a good opportunity for the political parties to tell us where they stand on this idea. In the meantime, the Senate should extend its sitting long enough to pass the legislation still before it.

National Post

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-the-senates-pocket-veto/feed3stdSCOC SenateNorth Korea may be starving. Um, yeah … we’ll get back to you. And Thursday’s other reasons to fear for humanityhttp://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/north-korea-may-be-starving-um-yeah-well-get-back-to-you-and-thursdays-other-reasons-to-fear-for-humanity
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/north-korea-may-be-starving-um-yeah-well-get-back-to-you-and-thursdays-other-reasons-to-fear-for-humanity#commentsThu, 18 Jun 2015 14:20:04 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=800791

1. Greece gets bankruptcy, and bikers too

Greg Pender/Postmedia

This is just what Greece needs — crazy Canadian bikers beating up on people: According to the Vancouver Sun, dozens of Canadian Hells Angels headed to Greece this month for an international biker parade and convention, where at least three of them distinguished themselves by ending up in jail. Three Alberta Hells Angels are behind bars after being arrested following the near-fatal beating of a Greek man. At least nine B.C. Hells Angels also attended the international meeting of 2,000 Hells Angels from 500 chapters. The three from Alberta made a court appearance last Friday. The 41-year-old man they allegedly beat up is on life support.

2. Battle at the top of the CRTC

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean KilpatrickCTRC Chairman Jean-Pierre Blais .

Sounds like these guys really don’t like each other: A dispute at the top tier of the CRTC is getting totally out of hand. It pits CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais against Ontario regional commissioner Raj Shoan. Shoan reportedly submitted travel plans that included trips to Las Vegas, Amsterdam, New York City and Mont Tremblant, adding up to $78,000, and Blais refused to approve them. Shoan cut the list to $48,000 and invited Blais to pick the ones he’d approve. When Shoan said he planned to take the dispute to the PMO, Blais responded that: “No reasonable person could interpret (your statements) as anything but threatening, specifically with the intent to bully me into the outcome you want.…”

Boys, boys …take it outside. We have cellphone bill disputes to deal with here.

3. North Korea may be starving. Or not.

EPA / KCNANorth Korean leader Kim Jong-un. If the country is starving, he doesn't show it.

There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether North Korea is in danger of mass hunger due to the worst drought in 100 years. Food is an issue at the best of times in North Korea and it’s unusual that it would draw international attention to the extent of the drought. (They usually don’t like to admit life is anything but perfect in the world’s most malevolent one-man state). A U.S. State Department official said he’s heard the drought reports but didn’t know of any plans to respond. China says it’s willing to help if North Korea asks for it. No one believes much of what North Korea says anyway, so it’s hard to know the truth.

4. Rape clinic plans “gender equality” care for men

A hospital in Stockholm is set to become the first in the country (or anywhere?) with an emergency department specifically for male rape victims. The clinic at Södersjukhuset is scheduled to open this autumn. Södersjukhuset (try and say that fast, three times) already has the largest emergency care unit in the Nordic region and runs a round-the-clock, walk-in clinic for women and girls who have been sexually assaulted. Now it says it will also admit men and boys as part of a strategy to ensure “gender equal” emergency care for rape victims of both sexes.

5. And they all want houses in Vancouver

FileAsia is in the money

The Economist says Asia is richer than Europe for the first time and is catching up to North America. It says Asian wealth is expected to reach $75 trillion by 2019, compared to $63 trillion (give or take) in North America. And although the U.S. still has by far the most millionaires, Asia created more new ones last year than anywhere else — 62% of the total. The main reason is China: It will account for 70% of Asia’s growth between now and 2019, and will overtake North America as the Big Kahuna by 2021.

6. Rob Ford hearts Donald Trump. Perfect

File: Peter J. Thompson/National Post Former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

Rob Ford says he’s a big fan of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. How great is that? I bet David Letterman wishes he hadn’t quit before he heard about it. The jokes just make themselves up.

7. Scandal at the Senate. Stop me if you’ve heard this

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean KilpatrickLiberal senator James Cowan is among senators RCMP will examine.

The Star says the RCMP plans to review all 30 senators flagged for questionable spending in the auditor general’s review, not just the nine the AG separated out for special attention. The list includes Senate Speaker Leo Housakos, recently named to the top job by Stephen Harper; Conservative government leader Claude Carignan and Senate Liberal caucus leader James Cowan.

A number of senators say they have been unfairly persecuted in a sweeping 116-page audit report on expense claims.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s report released Tuesday found a “pervasive lack of evidence, or significant contradictory evidence” to support expense claims for many senators. It recommends the Senate create an independent oversight body to review senators’ expenses.

There report also found a “lack of formal rules, policies, or guidelines” in the Senate Speaker’s office, and that financial management controls “that specifically applied to Senators did not apply to the Speaker’s office.”

All told, the auditor general flagged 30 senators in his report for problematic or questionable expense claims totalling almost $1 million.

However, many of the senators identified in the audit fired back at the auditor general in the 500-word responses they were allowed to provide for the report, with some calling the AG’s findings and comments “scurrilous” and “defamatory.”

Adrian Wyld / The Canadian PressThe Senate chamber in Ottawa.

One of the major problems identified in the audit is the same one under the microscope in Mike Duffy’s criminal trial: senators claiming expenses relating to their secondary residence in Ottawa when they declare a primary residence elsewhere.

The nine current and former senators identified in the auditor general’s report for having serious spending problems and whose files have been referred to the RCMP, include current sitting senators Conservative Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (who has resigned from the Tory caucus to sit as an independent) and Liberal Colin Kenny

Of those nine, five – Boisvenu, Carstairs, Losier-Cool, Rompkey and Zimmer – made ineligible claims for living expenses because they declared their primary residences were outside Ottawa when they, in fact, spent most of their time in the capital, Ferguson’s report says.

Kenny says he is being unfairly persecuted for about $36,000 in questionable travel expense claims because some of the trips included personal activities – for which the Senate was not charged.

“Invalidating an entire trip on account of one personal appointment seems disproportionately punitive,” Kenny writes in his 500-word defence, included in Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s damning audit report on Senate spending released Tuesday.

The audit identified $35,549 in travel expenses over two years, beginning in April 2011, for which auditors say the Senate Liberal provided “insufficient or conflicting documentation” to determine whether the trips were primarily for parliamentary business.

“Several of these trips included single short meetings pertaining to his parliamentary business, but began with or were followed by personal activities,” says the report. Details of the trips were not provided.

The report says some of what it characterizes as poor record-keeping was due to the Senate administration, at Kenny’s request, not backing up his electronic calendar file. Kenny did provide a printed copy of his calendar for the audit period and later provided an electronic version.

“We noted discrepancies between these versions,” says the report. “The Senator stated that, in his view, the discrepancies were not significant.”

The auditors also raise questions about Kenny’s use of his Senate staff. “Staff performed numerous tasks … payments of personal invoices, maintenance of personal books and records, planning of various personal activities … that were not related to regular office operations.”

Kenny, it says, replied that the activities did not account for a significant amount of his staff’s time and were in accordance with a Senate rule allowing such work provided it is “minor, customary and reasonable” and does not incur a direct cost to the Senate.

But because of “conflicting information” about the extent of such activities and “insufficient information” about other staff positions, “we were unable to reach audit findings as to whether the salaries and benefits were for parliamentary business,” says the report.

Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press filesAuditor General Michael Ferguson.

In his response to the allegations, Kenny says he and his staff on Nov. 24, 2014 provided a detailed binder of answers to a series of initial questions from the office of the auditor general. He says it included the names of participants for every hospitality or travel meeting, the reason for the meeting and a compilation of (newspaper) opinion articles produced largely as a result of the meetings.

When Kenny was made of aware of the auditors’ preliminary conclusions March 6, he says he and his staff sought an explanation for the concerns over hospitality, travel and staff expenses. Repeated attempts to find out the specifics of those concerns failed, he says.

It wasn’t until April 29, five days before the deadline to formally response to the allegations, that Kenny says he received documentation that “briefly listed” details of the concerns.

“The document was useful in that it was the first chance I had to respond to (the) concerns. It was, however, provided very late in the process. Had it been given to me earlier, I would have been able to more capably defend the use of my expenses.”

Kenny saves much of his consternation for the auditors’ questioning of his travel expense claims is because he included personal activities on the trips – but at no expense to the Senate.

“Despite the fact that Senate rules allow for personal activities, the audit team insisted that virtually any personal appointments – costing the Senate no money – invalidated an entire trip that had a number of parliamentary activities. It was repeatedly stated to me that because a personal activity had occurred, the primary purpose of the trip could not be determined.”

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/senators-fire-back-at-auditor-generals-scurrilous-and-defamatory-report-on-expense-claims/feed1std>Senator Colin Kenny says NEXUS card holders should be able to bypass security.Adrian Wyld / The Canadian PressAdrian Wyld / The Canadian Press filesLetters: Time to show senators the doorhttp://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/letters-time-to-show-senators-the-door
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/letters-time-to-show-senators-the-door#commentsTue, 09 Jun 2015 18:49:47 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=792670

Re: Make The Senate An Election Issue, Andrew Coyne, June 9.Somehow, some day soon, taxpaying Canadians must gather the authority to say to their senators, “Okay guys, the gig’s up.” For nearly 150 years, the Senate has had its way — writing its own rules, using our money to keep members in princely style, and being challenged occasionally when a particularly egregious situation comes to light. Then, they scurry away, back to their old ways, until the next outrage. Given a chance, they’ll do this again when the current pressure (the Mike Duffy expenses trial, etc.) is off.

Now, we learn an independent arbitrator has been hired — former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie. When feeling unloved and unappreciated, senators can take their ruffled feathers to him and proclaim their innocence. Where do these audacious senators — Speaker Leo Housakis, government leader Claude Carignan and opposition leader James Cowan — get the authority to hire an arbitrator, then charge it to us? Especially when they themselves have been implicated in the auditor-general Michael Ferguson’s report and apparently planned to take their own cases to the arbitrator — a glaring conflict-of-interest.

What would it take for fed-up Canadians to stand their ground for a change and say, “You’re the ones who want the arbitrator, not us. Pay him yourselves, like any of us have to do when we get caught taking money that isn’t ours.”Tonia Kelly, Perth, Ont.

The offers by the three top senators to repay their questionable expenses is not good enough. In any other business or organization, white-collar crime is not acceptable and results in termination of employment or at least a substantial fine. The termination of the Senate should be the main election issue in the coming electionDonald J. Wood, Markham, Ont.

Liberal gun control?

Re: The Guns Of Freedom, editorial, June 6.Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette feels “afraid” now the Mounties are carrying sub-machine guns around Parliament. Only a seriously deluded and paranoid politician would fear the armed police who discourage maniacs from shooting up the very Senate in which she sits. It really gives us pause to consider the hidden agenda behind her party’s gun control efforts.Barry Glasgow, Woodlawn, Ont.

FIFA’s interests

Re: A New FIFA Is Coming, letter to the editor, June 8.Letter-writer Madeleine Wannop Ross Salter has it all wrong when she claims FIFA represents and “runs the affairs of the best soccer players.” These millionaire athletes are extremely well represented by their families, clubs, and agents. FIFA is there to represent the best interests of the game. Sadly, it failed.Dave Edwards, Kingston, Ont.

Handouts perpetuate dependency

Re: Old Idea Reborn In Unlikely Place, June 9.I work for a charity that is involved in projects in several countries in the developing world. One of the big lessons we have learned over the years is to minimize handouts or risk dependency. There are a few scenarios in which handouts are warranted — the recent earthquake in Nepal is one. Even then, the relief phase, during which food is being given to families, will only last until harvest time later this summer. During the rebuilding phase, we provide only what locals cannot provide for themselves. In Nicaragua, we are funding agricultural training programs, and provide seed to the farmers, but they are expected to return twice as many seeds at harvest time.

Handouts destroy people’s self-respect and dignity. To suggest poverty can be solved by throwing money at the problem is simplistic and foolish. The guaranteed income proposal is intended to solve some of the problems resulting from our welfare system, but two wrongs don’t make a right.Rick Postma, Word & Deed Ministries, Brantford, Ont.

Your article failed to discuss the most important issue — how tax revenues and expenditures would be balanced under Alberta’s guaranteed annual income (GAI) proposal: the abolishment of government social welfare programs. Dismantling the cumbersome, expensive welfare state apparatus is the only way to fund it. Otherwise, GAI would double government expenditures and consume more than 60 per cent of the province’s gross domestic product.Dennis Wiatzka, Calgary.

Pope’s meddling unhelpful

Re: The Fictional Kingdom, Geoffrey Clarfield and Salim Mansur, June 8.Pope Francis’s recognition of Palestine as a “state” is a huge embarrassment for anybody who has an interest in peace in the Middle East or sympathizes with the Roman Catholic Church. Since, apparently, not even the reciprocal recognition of Israel by the Palestinians has been conceded as a precondition, his ill-advised meddling is unconscionable. As Geoffrey Clarfield and Salim Mansur note, Jordan is a Palestinian state and as such nullifies the legitimacy of seeking to establish a second Palestinian state. The commonly accepted propaganda demanding the creation of a Palestinian state conceals that, in fact, a second Palestinian state is sought.

For geographical, ethnic, linguistic, religious and political reasons, the West Bank should be integrated into Jordan and Gaza into Egypt. Besides, who has thought through what problems a bicephalic state would create, i.e., the West Bank separated from Gaza by Israel and connected by a “secured” highway? Of course, neither Jordan nor Egypt is jumping on the opportunity to integrate a fanaticized populace, but why are these two states not pressured by the “moral authority” of the Pope to accept their coreligionist brethren?Heinz Klatt, professor emeritus of psychology, London, Ont.

Wishes vs. necessity

Re: Getting Past A Sense Of Entitlement, letters to the editor, June 9.Two assumptions have been made in the wake of the report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission. Many non-aboriginals assume its 94 recommendations represent the collective view of all aboriginals in this country. Aboriginals have had difficulty for decades agreeing on anything — the education deal proposed by the Harper government, which saw the demise of aboriginal leader Shawn Atleo, is just one example. It is unlikely most aboriginals even saw the 94 recommendations. The second assumption, held by many aboriginals ,is that Canadians feel responsible for actions of governments in the past, and somehow almost magically they will embrace a collective guilt for something they had no part in.

What aboriginals and non-aboriginals should be able to agree on is this: the residential schools were a tragedy, but we can’t fix the past. However, we can fix the educational prospects, the housing and health problems of our aboriginal people. This will provide the framework in which to address other issues in the aboriginal communities. A shopping list of 94 items means you will never separate the wish list from the necessary.Jeff Spooner, Kinburn, Ont.

As the trial of Senator Mike Duffy continues and as the Senate reels from the revelations of a broader pattern of misuse of public funds by its members, Canadians will eventually have to confront the question of what to do with our chamber of sober second thought.

For its part, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that abolition requires the unanimous consent of the federal and provincial governments and any significant change to the Senate’s powers or structure must be done through a constitutional amendment. Furthermore a court case that would compel the prime minister to fill vacancies in a reasonable time continues to work itself through the system.

It would appear that Canada has two options when it comes to the Senate. We can keep it as it is and hope that we can clean it up such that it is less of a national embarrassment. Or, we can actually think about what an effective and useful Senate might look like and amend the constitution accordingly.

Any model for a reformed Senate should focus on the Senate’s original purpose. First, it was supposed to provide provincial representation in Parliament, something upper houses do in every federation in the world. This is, I believe, crucial in a country as large and as diverse as Canada where majority governments in the House can be quite regionally unbalanced. The second is the oft-mocked idea of providing “sober second thought” on legislation passed by the House. Unlike other upper houses, the Senate was not conceived as a competitor to the House but as a place where legislation could be given another examination, with perspectives perhaps not heard in the House brought to bear. Again, this is an important principle worth reinforcing in a reformed Senate.

As a caveat on those roles I would argue that a reformed Senate should not wind up replacing the legitimate role played by the premiers in national politics. Canada has had a strong tradition of ministerial and first minister intergovernmentalism that has served us generally pretty well. The direct election of senators could usurp that role and create competition between the House and the Senate that is best avoided.

To provide voice for the provinces, I would start with the idea that a province’s Senate representation should reflect the politics of that province, not the politics of the prime minister. Thus, a province’s Senate delegation should change as the politics of the province change, not as the occupant of 24 Sussex changes. In short, a provincial Senate delegation should look something like the provincial legislature. For example, as of May 24th, Alberta’s senators should be mostly New Democrats, not entirely Liberals and Conservatives.

We could achieve this by tying Senate appointments to provincial election results. Following an election the province’s Senate delegation would be divided between the parties relative to their representation in the provincial legislature. Assuming six senators (as is currently the case), Alberta’s Senate delegation would be three New Democrats, two Wildrose and one Conservative. Those senators would serve until the next provincial election when their distribution could well change.

Related

This would give different political parties within each province some voice in Ottawa relative to their political strength. And those senators would owe their position to both their provincial party and, indirectly, to the voters of the province. In this way, the crucial role of the premiers in federal-provincial relations would not be undercut as it might be if senators were elected.

Senators could caucus however they wished. Conservative-minded or progressive-minded senators might flock together on many issues, but they would owe their position to their provincial government or party, not to the prime minister in the House. And that’s a very different and, in my view, positive dynamic to have in the upper house.

Thus, the alliances in the Senate could well be far more fluid and flexible than they are currently. It would be incumbent on the government in the House of Commons to pay some significant attention to how legislation will play in the Senate in order to ensure a bill’s passage.

And given the likely fluidity of the alliances in the Senate and the fact that it would remain an unelected body, it would be crucial to limit the powers of the Senate relative to the House. It should be able to amend, delay and advise, but ultimately it should not be able to permanently block legislation. It could actually provide sober second thought on legislation without the risk of the kind of deadlock we see in the current U.S. Congress.

Such a model, or some variant of it, would certainly require constitutional change to put into effect. But any reform of any real significance likely will also require us to open the constitution for amendment. To pretend there is a non-constitutional path to real Senate reform is disingenuous at best.

In the end, such a Senate would actually reflect the provinces as they are, not as the federal government would like them to be. The provincial delegations would themselves reflect at least some of the different voices in their province. And the public would have the opportunity to express some views about the appropriateness of those selected to serve and to hold their provincial party accountable for their choices.

National Post

Tom McIntosh is head of the department of politics and international studies at the University of Regina.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tom-mcintosh-bringing-the-provinces-into-the-senate/feed0stdsenate1Former PM Brian Mulroney says he knows how to fix the Senate: Take power away from the prime ministerhttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/former-pm-brian-mulroney-says-he-knows-how-to-fix-the-senate-take-power-away-from-the-prime-minister
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/former-pm-brian-mulroney-says-he-knows-how-to-fix-the-senate-take-power-away-from-the-prime-minister#commentsThu, 04 Jun 2015 15:05:38 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=788491

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney took his turn Wednesday night to criticize the Senate, calling it dysfunctional and badly in need of reform — but he also offered solutions.

Mulroney is one of many present and past politicians to call for changes to the upper house of Parliament in light of the ongoing Senate expense scandal.

“We all know the Senate is badly in need of reform,” Mulroney said in a speech to the Quebec branch of the Canadian Bar Association on Wednesday night in Montreal. “It has become a dysfunctional chamber and has fallen in disrepute.”

The auditor general is set to release a report on the expenses of all Canada’s senators after revelations several of them made inappropriate claims for travel and other expenses.

One of those Senators is Mike Duffy, who was suspended pending the result of his trial, which is ongoing. He has pleaded not guilty to 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery.

Mulroney said he had two solutions to reform the Senate that would not need a constitutional amendment.

First, Parliament should create a commission consisting of “two prominent Canadians” such as a former auditor general and a former member of the Supreme Court, and give them six months to come up with a “code of conduct for the Senate.”

The code would include “clear, strict rules” on issues such as residency requirements and the allowable expenses that can be charged to taxpayers.

Mulroney added the prime minister should refrain from making any appointments to the Senate until after the code goes into effect.

Second, the prime minister should only be able to name senators from “ranked lists provided by the provinces.”

This measure would “diminish the centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office,” Mulroney said.

He added the ranked lists would also limit the “process of packing the Senate by the party in power,” referencing critics who charge that senators are sometimes chosen based on their party loyalty and fundraising ability rather than for their legislative acumen.

Mulroney’s speech wasn’t all about politics, though.

The former PM, who led the country between 1984 and 1993, spent the first ten minutes of his speech making self-deprecating jokes to the crowd of Canada’s elite, which included the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin.

He also discussed how Canada has a “seemingly endless process of environmental reviews” for oil and gas pipelines and other energy projects.

Mulroney said the country needs to address climate change but also requires a “strong national commitment” to bringing its natural resources to market “or else they’ll stay dead in the ground.”

Throughout the Senate’s recent travails — in the Mike Duffy affair, and the associated, hydra-headed expenses scandal — the question that has hung in the air is whether Senators are even aware of how absurd, how presumptuous, how offensive their conduct appears.

But what was mere heedlessness approaches the suicidal in the matter of the Reform Act. Passed earlier this year by a vote of 260-17 in the House of Commons, the bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Michael Chong, is a modest but much-needed start at redressing the imbalance of power between MPs and party leaders. Yet senators seem bent on amending or otherwise running out the clock on the bill, which must be passed before the Senate rises for the summer or die on the order paper.

It’s not entirely clear who or what is behind this imperial obstinacy, on a matter that, after all, is entirely concerned with the internal workings of the Commons. Not much happens in the Senate’s Conservative caucus without the prime minister’s say-so: having grudgingly allowed its passage in the House, he may nevertheless prefer to have it quietly extinguished in the Senate. But senators of all parties seem also to have persuaded themselves they are serving some sort of principle by killing it.

Related

In a remarkable piece in the National Post last week, Conservative Senator David Wells complained chiefly of the provision whereby 20 per cent of the members of a party caucus could initiate a vote on whether to sack their leader, with a majority required to send him or her packing.

This is, Wells contended, an untenable affront to the party members who elected those leaders. “In the case of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who received a staggering 81,389 votes in the Liberal leadership contest in 2013, 20 per cent of his caucus, a mere eight people, could trigger a review and, shockingly, 19 people could overthrow him,” the senator wrote. “I wonder what the 81,389 people who put him there would think about this piece of ‘democratic reform.’”

We’re not sure what the senator imagines to be the case at present, but it’s a pretty safe bet that if a “mere” eight MPs were tomorrow to publicly demand that Trudeau step down — if even three or four did — he would instantly be plunged into a fight to keep his job. Only it would be one, as we have seen in the recent past, with no rules and no procedures — not even a measure of how many MPs he would need to survive.

This is really the point of that particular measure: to regularize what is now a lengthy, debilitating game of blind man’s bluff; to make it quicker, less damaging to the party, and therefore a more credible check on the leader. That, and to establish the answerability of party leaders to caucus as a matter of democratic principle, on a par with the answerability of the prime minister to the House.

The “mere eight people” to which Sen. Wells refers happen to be people, unlike him, who have been elected, collectively representing scores of thousands of Canadians. We might share his outrage, if we accepted his premise: that MPs are “mere” specks in the democratic firmament, bits of dust trailing in the leader’s wake. They are not: indeed, caucus is the only body to which the leader, once elected, can be held to account. Most of the 81,389 people who voted in the Liberal leadership race are not even traceable, let alone in a position to express their views.

But leave that to one side. Regardless of one’s views on the bill, it is surely intolerable that the Senate should take it upon itself to decide its fate. It should not need explaining, but apparently it does: you earn the right to pass or defeat laws in a democracy by winning a mandate from the people. Whatever power senators may have on paper, they have no legitimate basis on which to defeat a bill that has been duly passed by the people’s elected representatives.

If the 260 members of the House of Commons who voted for the bill were acting contrary to the wishes of either their party or their constituents, they can be held to account for it soon enough. Whereas the senators, never having been elected in the first place, are likewise immune from future consequence. Or so they must imagine.

Senators may believe their appointments, on the strength of a large donation to the Liberal or Conservative parties thirty years ago, entitle them to supplant their own judgment for that of elected MPs. Or perhaps they simply feel they have nothing to lose — the public loathes them enough already. That, indeed, may have been the calculation of party leaders: let the Senate do the dirty work, and take the blame.

But there is a point at which that loathing may congeal into something more; at which the public’s willingness to put up with the Senate’s endless shenanigans at last reaches its limits. Do senators really wish to test that thesis?

Having spent a year and a half dumping on Michael Chong’s poor battered Reform Act, I think I have somewhat come around — ironically enough, thanks to the unelected senators who now seem willing to amend or stall the bill to death. The sheer undemocratic gall of that situation, which had never even occurred to me as a possibility, brought into focus that whatever one thinks of the legislation, it is at the very least a very useful exercise. It’s a litmus test: do you support the principles that animate the Reform Act — more empowered grassroots and MPs, less empowered party leaders — or do you not?

It always stood to reason that most MPs, and certainly the party leaders, whatever they might tell reporters, do not. There was nothing stopping the leaders from hewing to the principles in question. There was nothing stopping MPs from pitching open nominations, and codified conditions for leadership reviews and caucus expulsions and readmissions, to their parties. Curiously, it seems none got around to it. (The measures for which 260 of 277 MPs voted on third reading exist in other parliaments in party constitutions, not in statutes.)

Particularly with respect to riding nominations, moreover, MPs and their leaders behaved in precisely the opposite fashion: Justin Trudeau has taken more stick than he really deserves over his “open nominations,” especially in the cases where (so far as we know) he has merely expressed a preference. But he has hardly behaved as someone who believes a riding association’s decision is sacrosanct, and its alone to make. Trudeau has declared his party closed to candidates who won’t vote the pro-life position; NDP leader Thomas Mulcair went further, saying “no one will be allowed to run for the NDP if they don’t believe that it is a right in our society for women to make their own choices on their reproductive health. Period.” Chong reported hearing from MPs concerned that the Reform Act would interfere with their parties’ quotas for minority candidates. And all of that is fair enough. But it’s also proof of monolithic lack of support for truly open nominations.

But if the Reform Act passes, MPs and their leaders will not be able to avoid the litmus test. The fudging will come to an end. The bill as approved by the House does not demand that the leader surrender signoff on candidates; it merely allows him to. It does not strip leaders of their power to expel and readmit caucus members and assign it to the caucus, and it does not install procedures for launching leadership reviews and spills; rather it obligates each caucus to decide whether to assume those powers and adopt those procedures after each election — in recorded votes, no less.

Related

If they accept, the media and parliamentary purists will focus on how they operate in this brave new world. And if they decline, the media and parliamentary purists will demand to know why — and it is reasonable to assume MPs and their leaders will sound very, very silly explaining themselves. Either way it’s a win: we’ll be focusing on behaviour rather than rules, which is where we should have been focusing all along. Reform Act or no Reform Act, if MPs en masse decide to be more independent, they will be more independent. If they don’t, they won’t.

And if the Reform Act dies before summer, it might even prove a more useful exercise. Chong or someone else could reintroduce it in the next parliament, but what would be the point? Senators would presumably still stand athwart it, doing their own or their leaders’ bidding. Memorial University political science professor Kelly Blidook, writing recently in these pages, argued that if the Senate kills the Reform Act he would finally embrace abolitionism, in full knowledge of how crazily impossible that is. For fans of Parliament As It Should Be, a far more useful lesson to learn would be this: Parliament cannot, should not and will not be fixed with a law. It can only be fixed by parliamentarians wanting it to be fixed, and then fixing it — individually, jointly and in their parties. Sorry to say, but the history of the Reform Act thus far suggests they like things pretty much as they are.

Bill C-586, also known as the Reform Act, has captured the attention of the public. As a Senator, I’ve made my views on this bill known to my colleagues and now that it has gained wider attention — directed and torqued primarily by the bill’s author, MP Michael Chong — it is incumbent on me to make these views known to a wider audience.

It is a simple bill, only a couple of pages long, but its simplicity does not make it right — or even good. Nor should its simplicity exempt it from scrutiny, which is the job of the Senate. To simply pass this bill because “there’s not much time left in the session,” or because it passed in the House of Commons, does not excuse any bill from scrutiny.

There are elements of the bill that are of little consequence. Electing a caucus chair, removal of members of the House of Commons from a party caucus and removing the authority of the party leader to approve candidates wishing to run are such minor issues that one wonders if codifying them in Canadian law is even necessary. In fact, they seem to be issues more appropriately covered under party policies than as laws of the land.

Related

The key element that needs to be carefully considered is the provision that serves to dismiss the will of the grassroots in the choice and dismissal of a party leader.

Tucked away in Bill C-586 is a provision that would trigger a party leadership review if a mere 20 per cent of MPs of that particular party say so. The bill purportedly seeks to empower members of Parliament. In this sense, empowerment means to force the leader of the party to bend to the wishes of a few, despite being put in as leader by thousands in an organized and time-tested process.

Canada’s current prime minister, Stephen Harper, became leader of the Conservative party with 67,143 votes in the CPC leadership convention in March 2004. In the current House of Commons, the Conservatives have 160 members. A disgruntled 32 members (20 per cent) could throw the leadership of the country into chaos by triggering a vote of party confidence in the sitting prime minister and 81 could oust him from his job. Remember that thousands of people put Harper in as party leader and millions more put the Conservatives in power — with Harper as leader — through our electoral process.

In the case of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who received a staggering 81,389 votes in the Liberal leadership contest in 2013, 20 per cent of his caucus, a mere eight people, could trigger a review and, shockingly, 19 people could overthrow him. I wonder what the 81,389 people who put him there would think about this piece of “democratic reform” proposed by Chong.

Further, under this bill many provinces and territories would be left of out the process of de-selection. My province of Newfoundland and Labrador has no Conservative members of the House of Commons, therefore there would be no voice from my province over whether a party leader — in this case a sitting prime minister — would be dismissed from the position.

The people of Alberta, where there are no Liberal members of the House of Commons, would have no voice either. The territories, with only one member each, would be virtually ignored. Forcing parties to ignore vast numbers of Canadians in this critical process is wrong. Our democratic systems should not be based on exclusion and this bill does exactly that.

Under this proposed legislation, it is designed that a situation occurs in which thousands choose a party leader and millions of voters elect a party to form government, and therefore its leader to be prime minister, only to have its House of Commons members switch who is prime minister with no procedural recourse or consultation with voters — party grassroots or the electorate.

We celebrate the fact that many thousands of people join political parties so they can have voice in the leadership and governance of a party. We celebrate the fact that millions exercise their democratic right in our electoral system to choose which party, and therefore which leader, governs the country. To dismiss the will of the grassroots and the electorate under the cloak of “reform” by a small cabal of disgruntled is an affront to democracy.

National Post

David Wells is a senator for Newfoundland and Labrador.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/david-wells-why-the-upper-chamber-has-not-passed-the-reform-act/feed5stdThe future of Senate reform will be made clear in one week. The Supreme Court of Canada announced Thursday that it will give its opinion on the Harper government’s plans for the Senate on April 25.